It's quite unkind to tell someone who's feeling fear because a murder happened that they are being "absurd".
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13723202 and marked it off-topic.
All i did was try to give him the benefit of the doubt until it was clear he was trolling. If things like this bother you, i recommend actually taking steps that discourage people from arguing in bad faith.
It is extremely hard to determine when someone is just ignorant, or when they're taking the piss; but when it's clear the latter should not be acceptable.
HN depends on us keeping our comments more civil and substantive as a topic gets contentious or another person's comments get annoying. I say more because we all have a bias not to perceive how we're slipping in such situations (it always feels like someone else started it, and did worse, while "I merely", etc.), so there needs to be a conscious counteraction.
Do you honestly think i was uncivil? Made unsubstantive (non-factual?) comments? If so, where?
Because quite frankly on reviewing the conversation i cannot see it. I can see only comments from me that are perfectly polite and factual, except for the last edit in the last post i made, where i stopped being polite.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13724307 was uncivil, as you mention. So was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13723815. I don't mean to pick on you personally, but your username sticks in my mind as someone who's done this kind of thing a fair bit. You're a good commenter otherwise, so I/we'd appreciate it if you'd work on this.
Given that you value "rational heads" it is ironic you managed to not read my post with a rational head.
Edit: Also, given that, as a state Kansas failed to enact measures that are proven to minimize occurence of such things, i think it does not get to complain about being demeaned. These deaths are on Kansas, as a state.
>Kansas failed to enact measures that are proven to minimize occurence of such things
Source?
"In 2015, for instance, a law was passed allowing Kansas residents to carry a concealed firearm without a permit or training."
I could likely find more (education, social services, etc.), but well, i don't think i need to look further after that.
E: Also have this: https://i.imgur.com/6f7lRRH.png
vvv E: holy shit, your willingness to be absurd about this is mind-boggling, especially when you ask for source for a thing i already linked. further engagement with you is a waste of everyone else's time. and yes, at this point i mean to be unkind to you, since you're just trolling, not expressing fear in response to a murder vvv
>Gun possession increases the frequency of deaths due to terrorist attacks
Please provide evidence to support this conclusion.
>Basic physics.
Physics doesn't say that owning a gun will make you point it at another person and pull the trigger.
>Guns make it easier to achieve death of others.
Agreed.
>All other things being equal, less guns = less deaths, more guns = more deaths.
This doesn't follow. Please provide a source. Less apples = more starvation?
>Kansas makes it worse by not even pretending to restrict guns to anyone of any mental disposition.
Does this lead to more deaths due to terrorist attacks (guns or no)? Source?
Edit:
>holy shit, your willingness to be absurd about this is mind-boggling
Isn't it mean to call someone absurd? ;)
The courts are quite clear we have a constitutional right not privelage to keep and bear arms.
Perhaps the state of Kansas and Missouri as well, was simply recognizing that trying to control this right would be ultimately shot down in the courts and a waste of time and energy to futilely do so.
The Boston bombers used explosives not guns, Timothy Mcvey used a truck load of explosives not guns made from fertilizer and fuel oil. The scale of death from that far FAR out numbered any mass shooting to date.
The guy in France that just drove a truck and ran over people didn't use a gun.
It's nonsense to focus on guns. Mental illness is what you should focus on. But you and others don't because it's not as easy to define or pin down as a black piece of metal.
Shame because that is the real issue in these tragedies. Mental state.
Setting aside the discussion at hand, will you unpack what you mean by this? Both the 1st and 2nd amendments are considered rights, yet do have constitutionally-upheld restrictions in the US. Please note I'm not arguing one way or the other whether your statement or these restrictions are correct or not. I'm just trying to understand fully what you mean by this statement.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
Do you mean can in the sense of constitutionally pass a law restricting them? Do you consider these restrictions, or something else? In your opinion should the restrictions above be lifted? Something else entirely?
Are you sure you want to stick with this argument?